DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                C.C.NO.38 OF 2016

Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra            - President.

                 Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik   -  Member .

                  Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy       - Member .

Sri Jayadev Tarini, aged - 51 years.

S/O: Late Udayanath Tarini

 Village- Rujangi, Lengerisahi( Near Nipidit Office ).

PO/PS- Pakanagaon, Sadar Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal.                  ……………………….. Complainant.

                                Versus.

1. Proprietor, Shree Krishna Agencies

At/PO: Jaganath Market, Main Road, Phulbani

PS: Town, Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal.

2. Proprietor, The mobile Net

(Authorized Servicing Center)At- Ananda Plaza, Ground Floor

Near Sri Sai Temple Gandhinagar, Main Road,

PO: Berhampur .Dist: Ganjam.

3. C.E.O, Samsung India electronic Pvt-Ltd.

Regd office – At-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate New Delhi – 110044              …………………………….. OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Self.

For the OPP. Parties: For O.P No.1- Self. For O.P No.2 & 3- None.

Date of Order: 29-07-2017

                                                                                                   O R D E R

                                                The case of the Complainant in short is that he had purchased a mobile phone on 03-07-2016 from O.P No.1 vide S.L No. RZ8H612NFVX by paying Rs. 7,650/-. But after  one and half month the mobile set was out of order, for which he reported the matter to the O.P No.1 who rectify the defect and assured him that the same defect can not arise in feature . On 21-08-2016 again the mobile set did not opened. So, he went to O.P No.1 for the purpose and he suggested to go

                                                                                                        -2-

Berhamper to repair the mobile set in Samsung Care Center, O.P No.2. On 24-08-2016 he proceeded to Berhampur and produced his mobile before O.P No.2 who kept the mobile set with an acknowledgement. After a week he again proceeded to Berhampur on telephonic call from O.P No.2. The .P No.2 stated that the mother board of the mobile is defective and advised him for replacement of the mobile from O.P No.1, the authorized dealer. Then he produced the mobile before O.P No.1 but he demanded the cost of the parts as well as the charges for procurement of the parts. So, he made contract with the O.P No.3 over phone and intimated the facts but no steps were taken by him even after waiting more than long period. As the warranty period is 12 months from the date of purchase and the O.Ps committed deficiency in service on their part, this complaint is filed by him due to  serious mental agony and financial loss .He is claiming for replacement of the mobile and Rs.5, 000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.

                                                The case of O.P No.1 as per his version is that the O.P No.1 is the only authorized dealer of the company and the company has established Service Center to repair the defect of the mobile .So, there is no deficiency in service from the side of O.P No.1. The O .P No.2 & 3 were set exparte in spite of getting registered notice from this Forum.

                                                We have heard the Complainant and the O.P No.1. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version of the O.P No.1 and the copy of the documents filed by the Complainant in support of his case. It is seen from the receipt that the Complainant had purchased the Samsung mobile set from O.P No.1 on 03-07-2016.The warranty period of the said mobile is one year from the date of purchase of the mobile set. It is also seen from the receipt given by O.P No.2 that the said mobile set was produced before him on 24-08-2016 for necessary repair. The mobile set of the Complainant was out of order within the warranty period. So, it is the duty and responsibility of the O.Ps either to repair or to replace the defective mobile. The mobile set was returned by O.P No.2 as there was no possibility for any repair. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile. Accordingly the complaint filed by him is allowed on context against the O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P No.2 & 3.

                                              Hence, the O.P No.3 is directed to replace the mobile set of the Complainant through O.P No.1, the authorized dealer of the company within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. He is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant within the said period. In case of failure the Complainant shall be entitled to get back the purchase value of the mobile set it is Rs. 7,650/-along with the above awarded compensation and litigation cost with 10 % annual interest from the date of this order till the date of payment .

                                                The C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.

                    MEMBER                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT